Memorial for Respondent

TEAM CODE: I

IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE LA COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

AT THE PEACE PALACE, THE HAGUE, NETHERLANDS

GENERAL LIST NO YEAR 2016 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE STATES CONCERNING DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION, SAFE PASSAGE AND EXTRADITION OF BOBERT TIRES 17TH D.M. HARISH MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF RATANKA &

REPUBLIC OF ANGHORE /

CONFEDERATION OF UNITED PROVINCES (THE APPLICANT STATES)

(THE RESPONDENT STATE)

SUBMITTED IN THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

V

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

VI

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

XII

STATEMENT OF FACTS

XIII

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

XVII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

XVIII

BODY OF ARGUMENTS

1.

THE ACTS OF ANGHORE ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL

1

LAW 1.1

THE

GRANT OF

ASYLUM

ACCORDANCE WITH

1.1.1

THE GRANT

OF

TO

BOBERT TIRES

IS IN

1

TERRITORIAL

2

THE VCDR

2

ANGHORE

BY

INTERNATIONAL LAW

ASYLUM

DOES NOT VIOLATE THE

SOVEREIGNTY OF THE RECEIVING STATE 1.1.2

BY GRANTING ASYLUM, ANGHORE IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF

1.1.3

BOBERT TIRES

IS ACCUSED OF A

POLITICAL

CRIME AND HENCE FEARS

3

POLITICAL PERSECUTION 1.1.4

CONSEQUENTLY, BOBERT TIRES

IS A

REFUGEE

UNDER THE

REFUGEE

3

CONVENTION AND HENCE HAS THE RIGHT TO SEEK ASYLUM IN ANGHORE 1.2

CUP MUST GRANT SAFE PASSAGE TO BOBERT TIRES

1.2.1

INTERNATIONAL LAW

MANDATES

CUP

TO PROVIDE

4

SAFE PASSAGE

TO

4

ON

4

BOBERT TIRES 1.2.2

ALTERNATIVELY, SAFE PASSAGE

MUST BE GRANTED BY

CUP

HUMANITARIAN GROUNDS

D.M HARISH MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

II

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.3

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT BREACHING

5

REQUEST OF

6

THE EXTRADITION CLAIM OF BOBERT TIRES IS INADMISSIBLE OWING

6

CUP

HAS

VIOLATED

INTERNATIONAL LAW

BY

INVIOLABILITY OF ANGHORE’S DIPLOMATIC MISSION

2.

ANGHORE

IS NOT BOUND BY THE

EXTRADITION

RATANKA AND CUP 2.1

TO THE

MONETARY GOLD PRINCIPLE

INDISPENSIBLE THIRD

OF

PARTY 2.2

ALTERNATIVELY, ANGHORE

SURRENDER

OR

6

EXTRADITED

OR

8

IS NOT OBLIGED TO

EXTRADITE BOBERT TIRES TO CUP OR RATANKA 2.3

ALTERNATIVELY, BOBERT TIRES

CANNOT

BE

SURRENDERED TO RATANKA OR CUP OWING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NON-REFOULEMENT AND NON-DISCRIMINATION 2.3.1

THE PRINCIPLE

OF

NON-REFOULEMENT

PRECLUDES

ANGHORE

FROM

8

ANGHORE

FROM

9

BECAUSE

10

EXTRADITING OR SURRENDERING BOBERT TIRES 2.3.2

THE

PRINCIPLE

OF

NON-DISCRIMINATION

PRECLUDES

EXTRADITING OR SURRENDERING BOBERT TIRES 2.4

ALTERNATIVELY, BOBERT TIRES HE HAS COMMITTED A

CANNOT BE

EXTRADITED

POLITICAL OFFENCE WHICH IS AN EXCEPTION

TO THE OBLIGATION TO EXTRADITE

2.5

ALTERNATIVELY, BOBERT TIRES CANNOT BE EXTRADITED OWING TO

11

THE FEAR OF TORTURE, CRUEL OR INHUMAN TREATMENT

2.6

ALTERNATIVELY, BOBERT TIRES CANNOT BE EXTRADITED OWING TO

12

THE FEAR OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

3.

RATANKA

HAS

BREACHED INTERNATIONAL LAW

BY THE MANNER

13

AND NATURE OF INFORMATION GATHERED BY THE FIA

3.1

THE CLAIM PUT FORTH BY ANGHORE IS ADMISSIBLE ON GROUNDS OF

13

OBLIGATION OWED TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

3.2

THE

INVESTIGATIVE MODES AND METHODS USED BY THE

FIA

OF

14

RATANKA VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW


III

TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.2.1

THE FIA’S

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT MODES AND METHODS OF INVESTIGATION AMOUNT TO

14

INTERNATIONAL PEACETIME ESPIONAGE 3.2.2

THE FIA’S

TERRITORIAL

15

RIGHT

TO

15

AGAINST

17

THE SANCTIONS IMPOSED BY RATANKA AND CUP AGAINST ANGHORE

17

MODES

AND

METHODS

INFRINGE

THE

SOVEREIGNTY AND INTEGRITY OF FOREIGN STATES 3.2.3

THE FIA’S

MODES AND METHODS VIOLATE THE BASIC

PRIVACY OF INDIVIDUALS

4.

THE SANCTIONS

IMPOSED

BY

RATANKA

AND

CUP

ANGHORE VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 4.1

AMOUNT TO ‘USE OF FORCE’ UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

4.2

ALTERNATIVELY, AND

CUP

THE INDEFINITE

AGAINST

ANGHORE

SANCTIONS IMPOSED BY RATANKA

AMOUNT TO

18

ECONOMIC COERCION

UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

4.3

ALTERNATIVELY,

THE INDEFINITE SANCTIONS IMPOSED BY RATANKA

19

AND CUP ARE NOT COUNTERMEASURES

PRAYER


XX

IV

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ¶

Paragraph

BET

Bilateral Extradition Treaty

CUP

Confederation Of United Provinces

ECHR

European Convention of Human Rights

FIA

Foreign Intelligence Agency

ICCPR

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

ICJ

International Court of Justice

ILC

International Law Commission

Int'l

International

ILR

International Law Review

OAU

Organization of African Unity

OWA

One World Alliance

PCIJ

Permanent Court Of International Justice

Res.

Resolution

SAARC

South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation

UDHR

Universal Declaration Of Human Rights

UN

United Nations

UNGA

United Nations General Assembly

U.N.R.I.A.A

United Nations Reports of International Arbitral Awards

UNCAT

United Nations Committee Against Torture

UNHCR

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

UNHRC

United Nations Human Rights Committee

U.N.T.S.

United Nations Treaty System


V


ARTICLES

1.

Anthea J. Jeffery, Diplomatic Asylum: It’s problems and potential as a 1 means of protecting human rights; 1 S. Afr. J. on Hum. Rts.10 (1985)

2.

Alona E. Evans, The Columbian-Peruvian Asylum Case: The Practice of 1 Diplomatic Asylum, 46 The American Political Science Review, 142-157 (Mar., 1952)

3.

Peter Porcino, Toward Codification of Diplomatic Asylum, 8 N.Y.U. J. Int'l

1

L. & Pol. 435 (1975) 4.

Bassiouni, Ideologically Motivated Offenses and the Political Offenses

3

Exception in Extradition - A Proposed Juridical Standard for an Unruly Problem, 19 DEPAUL L. REV. 217, 228 (1969) 5.

Garcia-Mora, Treason, Sedition and Espionage as Political Offenses Under 3 the Law of Extradition, 65 U.PITT.L.REV.26 (1964)

6.

Deere, Political Offenses in the Law and Practice of Extradition, 27 AM. J. 3 INT'L L. 247 (1933)

7.

Garcia-Mora, The Nature of Political Offenses: A knotty Problem of 3,11,15 Extradition Law, 48 V.A. L.REV. 1226(1962)

8.

Marteen Den Heijer, Diplomatic Asylum and the Assange Case, 34 Phil. 4 L.J. 343 (1959)

9.

Sibylle Kapferer, The Interface between Extradition and Asylum, Legal 8 And Protection Policy Research Series, UNHCHR (November 2003)

10.

A. Helton, Harmonizing Political Asylum and International Extradition:

10

Avoiding Cacophony, 13 Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 457 (1986) 11.

Annie Bird, Third State Responsibility for Human Rights Violations, EJIL, 14 Volume 21, p. 883 (2011)

12.

Lt. Col. Geoffrey B. Demarest, Espionage in International Law, 24 Denv. 15 J. Intl'l L. & Pol'y, 325 (1996)


VI

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 13.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Adam Entous, Julian E. Barnes, U.S. scurries to shore up spying in Russia, 15 Wall Street Journal, (March 24, 2014)

14.

P.B.Newell, Perspectives on Privacy, 15 J. Env. Psych. 87 (1995)

16

15.

Edwards, G.E., International Human Rights Law Challenges to the New 17 International Criminal Court: The Search and Seizure Right to Privacy, 26 Yale J. Int’l L. 23 (2001)

16.

Alexandra Rengel, Privacy as an International Human Right and the Right 17 to Obscurity in Cyber Space, 2(2) Groningen J. Int’l L. 33, (2014)

17.

J Curtis Henderson, The legality of economic sanctions under International 18 Law: The case of Nicaragua, 43Washington & Lee L. Rev. 181 (1986) (con. After 125)

18.

Daniel W. Drezner, The hidden hand of economic coercion, 57 Int’l Org. 1 19 (2003)

19.

Hartmut Brosche, The Arab oil embargo and United States Pressure

19

against Chile: Economic and Political Coercion and the Charter of the United Nations, 7 Case Western ReserveJ. Int’l L. 23 (1974) 20.

Paul Szasz, The Law of Economic Sanctions, 71 Int’l. L.St. 456 (2007)

20

21.

Chiara Franco, Coercive Diplomacy, SANCTIONS AND

20

INTERNATIONAL LAW, (Instituto Affari Internazionali, March 5, 2015)

BOOKS AND REPORTS 1.

G. S. GOODWIN-GILL, J. MCADAM, THE REFUGEE IN

1

INTERNATIONAL LAW (Oxford University Press, 2007) 2.

JOHN BASSET MOORE, A DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (Vol. 4 I, 1906)

3.

B. S. MURTY, THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF DIPLOMACY: THE 4 DIPLOMATIC INSTRUMENT AND   WORLD PUBLIC ORDER (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1989)


VII



EILEEN DENZA, DIPLOMATIC LAW: COMMENTARY ON THE 5 VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS (3rd Edition, Oxford University Press, 2008

5.

I L. OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW: A TREATISE, (8th Ed. 1955)

6

6.

M. CHERIF BASSIOUNI, INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW (Third 8 Edition, Volume 1, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1937)

7.

G. GILBERT, TRANSNATIONAL FUGITIVE OFFENDERS IN 8 INTERNATIONAL LAW (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1998)

8.

SIR E. LAUTERPACHT AND D. BETHLEHEM, THE SCOPE AND 8, 12 CONTENT

OF

THE

PRINCIPLE

OF

NON-REFOULEMENT

(Cambridge University Press, June 2003) 9.

IAN BROWNLIE, PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 8 (5th edition, 2000)

10.

UNHCR,

CONCLUSIONS

COMMITTEE

ON

THE

ADOPTED

BY

INTERNATIONAL

THE

EXECUTIVE 10

PROTECTION

OF

REFUGEES (United Nations, 1975-2009) 11.

W.

KÄLIN,

DAS

PRINZIP

DES

NON-REFOULEMENT, 11

EUROPÄISCHE HOCHSCHULSCHRIFTEN (Vol. 298, Peter Lang Bern, 1982) 12.

JOHN KISH, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ESPIONAGE (Martinus 16 Nijhoff Publishers, 20th December, 1995)

13.

WESTIN, A.F., PRIVACY AND FREEDOM (The Bodley Head Ltd., 16 1970)

14.

MARGARET

P.

DOXEY,

INTERNATIONAL

SANCTIONS

IN 18

CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVE (2nd Edition, Palgrave Macmillan 1996) 15.

L. GOODRICH, E. HAMBRO, CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS: 19 COMMENTARY AND DOCUMENTS (Third Edition, World Peace


VIII



Foundation 1969) 16.

O.

ASAMOAH,

THE

LEGAL

SIGNIFICANCE

OF

THE 19

DECLARATIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS (Martinus Nijhoff, 1967) 17.

Chiara Franco, SANCTIONS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW, (Instituto 20 Affari Internazionali, March 5, 2015)

CONFERENCES AND RESOLUTIONS 1.

UNGA, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res 217A(III), 1 U.N.Doc A/810 (Dec. 10, 1948)

2.

UNGA, Question of Diplomatic Asylum, U.N. Doc A/10139 (Sep. 2, 1975)

1

3.

UNGA, Declaration on the Protection of all persons from being Subjected 12 to Torture or other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, U.N. Doc A/RES/30/3452 (Dec. 9, 1975)

4.

UNGA, Declaration on principles of international law concerning friendly

16

relations and cooperation among states in accordance with the UN charter, U.N.Doc A/RES/25/2625 (24th October, 1970) 3.

UNGA, The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age, U.N.Doc A/Res/68/167 17 (June 30, 2014)

5.

UNGA, The strict observance of the prohibition of the threat or use of 18 force in international relations and of the right of people to self determination, U.N.Doc A/RES/2160/XXI (30th November, 1966)

6.

UNGA, Declaration on the enhancement of effectiveness of the principles 18 of refraining from the threat or use of force in international relations, U.N.Doc A/RES/42/22 (18th November, 1987)

7.

UNGA, The Charter of economic rights and duties of States, U.N.Doc 18 UNGA/RES/3281 XX1X (17th December, 1984)


IX



UNGA, Declaration on the enhancement of effectiveness of the principles 18 of refraining from the threat or use of force in international relations, U.N.Doc A/RES/42/22 (18th November, 1987)

9.

UNGA, Declaration on the inadmissibility of intervention in the domestic 20 affairs of states and protection of their independence and sovereignty, U.N.Doc A/RES/20/2131 (21st December, 1965)

10.

UNGA, Declaration on principles of international law concerning friendly 20 relations and cooperation among states in accordance with the UN charter, U.N.Doc A/RES/25/2625 (24th October, 1970)

11.

UNGA, Economic measures as a means of political and economic 20 coercion against developing countries, U.N.Doc A/RES/46/210 (20th December, 1991)

12.

UNGA, Unilateral economic measures as a means of political and 20 economic coercion against developing countries, U.N.Doc A/RES/66/138 (14th July, 2011)

ICJ AND PCIJ CASES 1.

Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, Great 7 Britain and Northern Island and United States of America), 1954 I.C.J 19 (June 15)

2.

Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), 1992 I.C.J. 240, 7 326-330 (June 26)

3.

Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), 1995 I.C.J. 90, 102 7 (June 30)

4.

Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Case (Belgium v. Spain), 1970 ICJ

14

Reports ¶33–34 (Feb. 5) 5.

Case Concerning the Military and Parliamentary Activities In and Around 14, 16 Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), 1986 I.C.J. 14 (June 27)


X



CONVENTIONS AND TREATIES 1.

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951, 28th July 1951, 189

1,4,9,10

UNTS 137 2.

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 18th April, 1961, 500 UNTS 3,5 95

3.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Jan. 27, 1980, 1155 U.N.T.S. 3 331

4.

Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1967, Article XII (1), 4th Oct. 10 1967, U.N.T.S. Vol. 606

5.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 3, Mar. 23, 11 1976, 999 U.N.T.S. 171

6.

Convention Against torture, Cruel, Inhuman or other Degrading Treatment 12 or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, U.N.T.S. Vol. 1565

7.

Council of Europe, European Convention on Extradition, Article 15, ETS 12 24 (1957)

8.

Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Convention, 12 (1993)

9.

Charter of the European Court of Human Rights, Nov. 4 1950, ETS 5

13,16

10.

American Convention on Human Rights, Nov. 22, 1969

13

11.

African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, June 27, 1981

13

12.

United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, 1 UNTS XVI (24th October 18 1945)


XI

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Federal Republic of Ratanka and the Confederation of United Provinces on one side and the Republic of Anghore on the other side have agreed to submit this dispute ‘Concerning Diplomatic Protection, Safe Passage and Extradition of Bobert Tires’, to the International Court of Justice pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 1 of the Statute of this Court and by virtue of a Special Agreement (Compromis) signed in The Hague, The Netherlands, on the twelfth day of October in the year two thousand and fifteen and jointly notified to the Court on the same date. In accordance with Article 36, paragraph 1 of the Statute, the Court has jurisdiction to decide all matters referred to it for decision. Both parties shall accept the Court’s decision as final and binding and execute it in good faith.


XII

STATEMENT OF FACTS DESCRIPTION OF STATE PARTIES RATANKA: The Federal Republic of Ratanka is a developed country. It has a written constitution, which is premised on the theory of Separation of Powers. The Government of Ratanka holds FIA to be a part of its executive. However, the legal basis of FIA is to be decided by a class action petition pending before the 9th District Circuit Court in Ratanka. Ratanka shares a BET with CUP. CONFEDERATION OF UNITED PROVINCES: CUP is a developed country. The laws of CUP recognize the right to free speech as a basic right with reasonable restrictions. CUP shares a BET with Ratanka. Also, CUP is a part of the MET of 1995 ANGHORE: Anghore is a developing country. It has its embassy in CUP. SCANDINATIA: Scandinatia is the country of which Bobert Tires is a national. It is a party to the MET of 2005.

BOBERT TIRES AND THE FIA Bobert Tires is a national of Scandinatia and pursued his higher education in Ratanka. After he graduated, the Ministry of External Affairs appointed him as an advisor on foreign legal issues. When he was appointed, Tires signed a contract of engagement with Ratanka. This contract conferred the Courts of Ratanka with the jurisdiction to adjudicate, if Ratanka were to believe that Bobert Tires has acted against its interest, in the performance of his duties, either in Ratanka or whilst abroad. Over time, Bobert Tires was asked to work on a White Paper to discuss the compliance of investigative modes and methods of the FIA with foreign legal requirements and standards. While working on this, Bobert Tires accessed files and documents of the FIA. These documents disclosed that Ratanka had been using State of the Art technology and a network of agents in foreign jurisdictions to gather information including: recording of conversations between Foreign Heads of States, details of military and defence acquisitions and the development of space programs of various countries. By reading these files, Bobert Tires learnt the codes to access these digital files. After two years of working on the White Paper and seven days before he was to be interviewed for grant of Ratanka’s citizenship, a disillusioned Bobert Tires left Ratanka and went to CUP.


XIII

STATEMENT OF FACTS


THE ONE WORLD ALLIANCE Expatriates having permanent residence in CUP formed the OWA there. Its object was to expose the Imperial Hegemony of Developed States in general. Bobert Tires came into contact with OWA within a month of being in CUP and began to informally advise them, particularly to exploit social media as a medium to advance its campaign. OWA set up accounts on various social media platforms and increased its followers by exposing transcripts of conversation between the Heads of State of Granje and Alleja, two lesser developed countries, at a UN Summit in 2008, which revealed the incentives offered to these countries by Ratanka to give up certain demands. This was followed by many such frequent leaks, where OWA published diplomatic cables, containing sensitive information, which OWA claimed were received from an unknown source. This came to be known in contemporary media as the ‘Communigate’ scandal and OWA claimed that it was the largest leak of diplomatic cables in history. A few days later, CUP blocked OWA’s website on which such information was displayed. However, when a petition was filed challenging the Government’s decision, the High Court Queen’s Bench division held that the act of the Government would be an act of excessive pre-censorship and action could be taken only against specifically inflammatory posts on an international scale. Hereafter, OWA leaked a report detailing the illegal activities undertaken by Ratanka outside its mainland regarding the rampant torture of ‘prisoners of war’ in contravention of Article 16 of the UNCAT.

RATANKA, CUP AND BOBERT TIRES Ratanka’s Minister of External Affairs, Mr. Henis Kampberg, met with his counterpart of CUP and claimed the leaks by OWA to be ‘State Secrets and State Property’ and in the light of the same, CUP was expected to prevent OWA from publishing such information, else it would result in irretrievable breakdown of diplomatic relations. Considering the gravity of the leaks, the FIA began its own investigation. It probed into the status of around 3500 employees and ex employees of the Ministry of Ratanka’s External Affairs who may have had access to such information. The FIA narrowed down to Bobert Tires as the likeliest source. Based on this, Ratanka declared Bobert Tires as an ‘Enemy of the State’ and OWA as a ‘terrorist organization’. Ratanka’s lawmakers called for Tires to be charged with espionage. In the meanwhile, Bobert Tires was arrested by CUP’s Criminal Investigation Division, and produced before a Magistrate’s Court. The Magistrate’s Court granted bail to Bobert Tires D.M HARISH MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

XIV

STATEMENT OF FACTS


under the provisions of the Bail Act, 1932. Simultaneously, authorities in Ratanka began criminal investigations against Bobert Tires under the Ratanka Espionage Act, 1917. Newspaper reports indicated that Bobert Tires was to be convicted on a scheme of charges, which was punishable with Capital Punishment.

INTERVENTION OF ANGHORE When Bobert Tires was on bail in CUP, he came into contact with Ms. Tolo Koure, an executive assistant to the Ambassador of Anghore in CUP. A week later, Anghore announced that Bobert Tires had been granted political asylum in the Anghorian embassy at CUP. This is because Anghore believed that Bobert Tires may become a victim of political persecution.

CONSEQUENCES OF ANGHORE’S INTERVENTION Ratanka issued an extradition request to CUP under its BET. The Government of CUP approached the Anghorian embassy but it refused to release Tires maintaining that the action against him was politically motivated. CUP stationed Metropolitan Police Service outside the Anghorian embassy to arrest Bobert Tires should he try to leave. The situation became a live siege of the embassy in violation of the VCDR. Hereafter, Ratanka and CUP declared indefinite trade, economic and financial sanctions against Anghore. Additionally, Scandinatia issued an arrest warrant for Bobert Tires under the MET to which Scandinatia and CUP are signatories for allegedly assaulting two women in 2008, prior to leaving for Ratanka. The Anghorian embassy sought an assurance from Scandinatia that Bobert Tires will not be reextradited to Ratanka if extradited to Scandinatia. Anghore believed that the Scandinatian arrest warrant was only a means to cause Bobert Tires to lose his status of protection. However, there was no further response from Scandinatia. Soon after, Bobert Tires had developed a potentially life threatening heart defect and a chronic lung condition. He was battling for life within the confines of the Anghorian embassy. An official statement issued by the Anghorian embassy ratified Bobert Tires’ condition. Requisite medical care could not be provided in the Anghorian embassy and hence, it wrote to CUP, requesting safe passage on humanitarian grounds. CUP rejected this request, on the grounds that the purported illness had not been verified by CUP.


XV

STATEMENT OF FACTS


EPILOGUE Ratanka, CUP, and Anghore agreed to have the dispute referred to the ICJ under Article 40(1) of its Statute. Ratanka and CUP contended that the asylum is unlawful, safe passage cannot be granted and the inviolability of the premises of Anghore’s embassy has been upheld. It also claims the extradition of Bobert Tires. The nature of the information gathered by the FIA, its methods and the sanctions imposed against Anghore do not violate International Law. Anghore contends that the asylum is legal, safe passage to Bobert Tires should be granted and the inviolability of Anghore’s embassy has been violated. Anghore argues that Bobert Tires must not be extradited. It also contends that the nature of the information gathered by the FIA, its methods and the sanctions imposed against it violate International Law.


XVI

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The parties have placed before this Hon’ble Court, the following Questions for its consideration

1. Whether the Asylum granted to Bobert Tires by the Anghorian Embassy in CUP is lawful?

2. Whether CUP is obligated to provide safe passage to Bobert Tires?

3. Whether stationing Metropolitan Police Service outside the Anghorian embassy in CUP and subsequent acts of CUP amount to violation of the VCDR?

4. Whether Anghore must extradite or surrender Bobert Tires to Ratanka or CUP? 5. Whether the manner and method used by Ratanka’s FIA to gather information and the nature of information collected by it, are in violation of International Law?

6. Whether the economic, financial and trade sanctions imposed by Ratanka and CUP against Anghore amount to ‘Use of Force’?

The Respondent has duly addressed all the aforementioned in the form of four substantive arguments advanced, summarized under.


XVII


1. THE ACTS OF ANGHORE ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW The Grant of Diplomatic Asylum has attained customary status under international law. Such a grant doesn’t derogate from the territorial sovereignty of CUP and neither does it violate the VCDR. Further, Bobert Tires, is accused of a political crime i.e. terrorism and hence fears political persecution. He is therefore qualified as a refugee under the Refugee Convention as well as the UDHR and has the right to seek asylum. Consequently, International Law mandates he should be granted a safe passage to Anghore by CUP on humanitarian grounds. Lastly, CUP has violated international law by breaching the inviolability of Anghore’s diplomatic mission.

2. ANGHORE IS NOT BOUND BY THE EXTRADITION REQUEST BY RATANKA AND CUP In the instant case, extradition request is inadmissible owing to the Monetary Gold principle of indispensable third party. Further, in the absence of any treaty obligation, Anghore is not bound to surrender or extradite Bobert Tires to CUP or Ratanka. Alternatively, principle of non-refoulement and non-discrimination along with the political offence exception to extradition put an obligation on Anghore to not extradite Bobert Tires. Lastly, there exists a fear of being exposed to Torture, Cruel, Inhuman Treatment and capital punishment if Bobert Tires is extradited to Ratanka.

3. RATANKA

HAS

BREACHED INTERNATIONAL LAW

BY THE MANNER AND NATURE OF

INFORMATION GATHERED BY THE FIA

Primarily, the aforesaid contention of Anghore is admissible because International Law permits third states to bring claims before the ICJ when state obligations to the International Community as a whole have been violated. Additionally, the claims of Ratanka with regard to asylum and extradition are inadmissible because they violate the Clean Hands Doctrine under International Law. The modes and methods adopted by the


XVIII



FIA and the nature of information procured by it amounts to International Peacetime Espionage. Such practices not only infringe the Territorial Sovereignty and Integrity of Foreign States but also the fundamental right to Privacy guaranteed to individuals.

4. THE SANCTIONS

IMPOSED BY

RATANKA

AND

CUP

AGAINST

ANGHORE

VIOLATE

INTERNATIONAL LAW The sanctions imposed by Ratanka and CUP against Anghore amount to ‘Use of Force’. Alternatively, such sanctions amount to Economic Coercion, which is unlawful under International Law. Additionally, these sanctions cannot be construed as Countermeasures adopted in accordance with the ILC Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.


XIX

CONTENTION I THE ACTS OF ANGHORE ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW 1.1.

THE GRANT OF ASYLUM TO BOBERT TIRES BY ANGHORE IS IN

ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW Diplomatic Asylum has been established as a regional custom in Latin America. 1 There is an emerging trend among countries to grant Asylum to those accused of political offences.2 Some of the most authoritative opinions have held that grant of Diplomatic Asylum does not breach International Law.3 Furthermore, Right to seek Asylum where there is fear of persecution can be seen in Refugee Convention,4 as well as the UDHR5. Hence, it can be reasonably said that Diplomatic Asylum has attained customary status under International Law. Additionally, the Colombian-Peruvian Asylum Case does not disapprove the concept of Diplomatic Asylum in International Law.6 The ICJ decided only the questions presented to it: whether any treaties controlled the situation before the Court and, if so, the rights and obligations of the parties under those treaties.7 To answer these, the ICJ gave virtually no consideration to International Law.8 The Court engaged in an exercise in treaty interpretation, looking beyond the Havana Convention only when Colombia's argument forced it to do so, while managing to dismiss all arguments inconsistent with its interpretation of the treaty.9 Thus, there exists no evidence, disapproving grant of diplomatic asylum in international law. 1.1.1 The Grant of Asylum does not violate territorial sovereignty of the receiving state Although there is thus no express or implied acceptance of the limitations of sovereignty 1

Anthea J. Jeffery, Diplomatic Asylum: It’s problems and potential as a means of protecting human rights; 1 S. Afr. J. on Hum. Rts.10 (1985) 2

Alona E. Evans, The Columbian-Peruvian Asylum Case: The Practice of Diplomatic Asylum, 46 The American Political Science Review, 142-157 (Mar., 1952) 3

G. S. GOODWIN-GILL, J. MCADAM, THE REFUGEE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, p.67 (Oxford University Press, 2007) 4

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951, 28 th July 1951, 189 UNTS 137

5

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res 217A(III), U.N.Doc A/810 (Dec. 10, 1948)

6

UNGA, Question of Diplomatic Asylum, U.N. Doc A/10139 (Sep. 2, 1975)

7

Peter Porcino, Toward Codification of Diplomatic Asylum, 8 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol. 435 (1975)

8

Id.

9

Colombian-Peruvian Asylum Case (Colombia v. Peru), 1950 ICJ 266 ¶274-275 (Nov. 20)


1

BODY OF ARGUMENTS


inherent in diplomatic asylum, it should be noted that a Grant of Asylum in an embassy involves only passive infringement on the rights of the sovereign.10 The only positive act of the granting state is the grant itself, and this is exercised only upon the initiative of a refugee, there is no active intervention.11 The foreign state does not enter the territory of the sovereign state uninvited and intervene between the government and the persecuted; there is no application of force or aggression against the territorial state. 12 Rather, it is the refugee who actively seeks out the protection of the foreign state. In this sense, the foreign nation is making only a limited incursion on the rights of the sovereign.13 Moreover, there is no question of any incursion into the territorial state or the application of force against it.14 Therefore by granting Asylum, Anghore has not violated the territorial sovereignty of CUP. 1.1.2. By Granting Asylum, Anghore is not in violation of VCDR It is sometimes contended that Article 41 of the Diplomatic Convention which provides that diplomatic or consular premises may not be used for any purpose inconsistent with the exercise of diplomatic or consular function, precludes the grant of Diplomatic Asylum.15 This argument is premised on the supposition that the VCDR lays down rigid rules as to the functions of such missions. This is wrong for the Articles describing diplomatic and consular functions are clearly not exhaustive.16 The VCDR does not absolutely prohibit Grants of Asylum in embassies.17 The list contained in Article 3 of the VCDR is not intended to be exclusive.18 That a particular activity of a mission does not appear on the list does not make it

10

C. NEALE RONNING, DIPLOMATIC ASYLUM: LEGAL NORMS AND POLITICAL REALITY IN LATIN AMERICAN RELATIONS, p.432 (Oxford University Press, 1923) 11

Id.

12

Felice Morgenstern, The Right of Diplomatic Asylum, 12 Br. Y.B. INT’L L. 327 (1949)

13

Id.

14

Supra note 7

15

Supra note 6

16

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Article 3(1), 18 th April, 1961, 500 UNTS 95

17

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 31(3), Jan. 27, 1980, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (hereafter Vienna Convention) 18

Id.


2

BODY OF ARGUMENTS


illegal either for purposes of the Convention or for the purpose of International Law.19 Hence, Article 41(3) should not be invoked to terminate such a grant. 1.1.3 Bobert Tires is accused of a Political Crime and hence fears Political Persecution. The "pure" political offense is customarily directed against the government.20 It is labeled a 'crime' because the interest sought to be protected is the sovereign. 21 These "pure" political crimes have usually been limited to treason, sedition and espionage. 22 Authorities and courts have consistently held that such "pure" offenses are political crimes, and will not subject the offender to extradition.23 Since the authorities in Ratanka had begun prosecuting Tires under the Ratanka Espionage Act,24 due to the pressure from lawmakers to prosecute him for espionage,25 and newspaper reports also suggested that Bobert Tires would be indicted on charges that included sedition and treason,26 it signifies that Bobert Tires feared being persecuted for a political crime. 1.1.4 Consequently, Bobert Tires is a Refugee under the Refugee Convention and hence has a Right to seek Asylum in Anghore. A refugee is someone who has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his/her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, political opinion.27 A social group can be defined as people in a certain relation or sharing similarities, interests, values, aspirations, social status or activities.28 Bobert Tires identified with OWA’s campaign29; 19

Supra note 10

20

Bassiouni, Ideologically Motivated Offenses and the Political Offenses Exception in Extradition - A Proposed Juridical Standard for an Unruly Problem, 19 DEPAUL L. REV. 217, 228 (1969) 21

Id.

22

Garcia-Mora, Treason, Sedition and Espionage as Political Offenses Under the Law of Extradition, 65 U.PITT.L.REV.26 (1964); Deere, Political Offenses in the Law and Practice of Extradition, 27 AM. J. INT'L L. 247 (1933). 23

Garcia-Mora, The Nature of Political Offenses: A knotty Problem of Extradition Law, 48 V.A. L.REV. 1226 (1962) 24

Compromis ¶18

25

Compromis ¶16

26

Supra note 10

27

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951, 28 th July 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 137

28

G. S. GOODWIN-GILL, J. MCADAM, THE REFUGEE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, p.67 (Oxford University Press, 2007)


3

BODY OF ARGUMENTS


hence OWA is a social group. Bobert Tires feared persecution for his alleged membership of the OWA30 and feared persecution for a political crime and hence for his political opinion, which was contrary to the policies adopted by FIA.31 Therefore, he is a refugee under Refugee Convention and has a right to seek Asylum. Consequently, Anghore is obliged to grant Asylum to Bobert Tires. 1.2. CUP MUST GRANT SAFE PASSAGE TO BOBERT TIRES 1.2.1. International Law mandates CUP to provide safe passage to Bobert Tires. Once it is established that the Asylum granted by the sending state is legal under international law, it follows that the receiving state is obligated to grant safe passage to a refugee. 32 Therefore such a right flows from a legal grant of asylum.33 Moreover, there is emerging state practice of the receiving state granting safe passage once diplomatic asylum is granted by the sending state.34 Therefore, since Anghore has established the legality of the Asylum granted to Tires, it follows that it must grant safe passage to Bobert Tires. 1.2.2. Alternatively, Safe Passage must be granted by CUP on Humanitarian Grounds. The right to life, liberty and security of a person is enshrined in International Law and it is the duty of every state to ensure that no person is deprived of the same.35 Bobert Tires had developed a potentially life threatening heart defect and a chronic lung condition and was battling for life, within the confines of the Anghorian Embassy and there was fear that his condition could worsen and his health could deteriorate if remedial measure were not undertaken and he was not given prompt and adequate medical care.36 In response to this,

29

Compromis ¶5

30

Compromis ¶15

31

Compromis ¶5

32

JOHN BASSET MOORE, A DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, p. 779 (Vol. I, 1906)

33

B. S. MURTY, THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF DIPLOMACY: THE DIPLOMATIC INSTRUMENT AND   WORLD PUBLIC ORDER, p.417 (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1989) 34

Marteen Den Heijer, Diplomatic Asylum and the Assange Case, 34 Phil. L.J. 343 (1959)

35

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3, G.A. Res 217A(III), U.N.Doc A/810 (Dec. 10, 1948)

36

Compromis ¶ 28


4

BODY OF ARGUMENTS


Anghorian embassy agreed to hospitalize him for special treatment in Anghore. 37 Based on these humanitarian considerations, CUP must grant safe passage to Bobert Tires. 1.3. CUP HAS VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW BY BREACHING THE INVIOLABILITY OF ANGHORE’S DIPLOMATIC MISSION The inviolability of the premises is an undeniably established norm of International Law according to which the premises of a diplomatic mission physically present in the territory of the receiving state are not subject to the jurisdiction of the receiving state in the same manner as other property is.38 In the present context, the important aspect of inviolability of the premises is that the receiving state has a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage. 39 The special duty to protect, requires the authorities of the receiving State to prevent unauthorized intrusion on mission premises and on the request of the head of the mission to expel intruders.40 Further, suspicion of abuse of the premises by violation of local laws or by continued shelter of an asylum seeker is clearly not a justification for entry by law enforcement officers in contravention of inviolability.41 CUP stationed officers of its Metropolitan Police Service outside the Anghorian Embassy, and restricted access of people and provisions into the embassy. 42 Both CUP and Anghore are parties to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.43 Instead of exercising its duty to protect, CUP itself surrounded the embassy, turning the situation on ground into that of a live siege.44 Therefore, CUP has violated the inviolability accorded to the Anghorian embassy under International Law.

37

Id.

38

ILC, YEARBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION, p. 95 (Vol. II, United Nations, 1958)

39

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Article 22(2), 18 th April, 1961, 500 U.N.T.S. 95

40

EILEEN DENZA, DIPLOMATIC LAW: COMMENTARY ON THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS, p. 556 (3rd Edition, Oxford University Press, 2008) 41

Id.

42

Compromis ¶ 23

43

Clarifications to the Compromis

44

Compromis ¶ 27


5

CONTENTION II ANGHORE IS NOT BOUND TO HONOUR THE EXTRADITION REQUEST BY RATANKA AND CUP 2.1. THE EXTRADITION CLAIM OF BOBERT TIRES IS INADMSSIBLE OWING TO THE MONETARY GOLD PRINCIPLE OF INDISPENSABLE THIRD PARTY The Monetary Gold Principle is embodied in the Court’s statute and was upheld in the 1954 judgment of the Court in Monetary Gold removed from Rome,45 and various other cases adjudicated by the court.46 According to the aforesaid principle, the Court will not adjudicate on a case where the Court would be required, as a necessary prerequisite, to adjudicate on the rights or responsibilities of a non-consenting and absent third State.47 Apart from Ratanka and CUP, Scandinatia had also requested for the extradition of Bobert Tires.48 Thus, it is evident that Scandinatia, the country of which Bobert Tires is a national, is a necessary third party in the present dispute. The extradition request sought by Ratanka and CUP,49 would require the court to determine the rights and interests of Scandinatia with regard to the extradition of Bobert Tires in the absence of Scandinatia’s consent to the jurisdiction of the ICJ. If the court were to exercise such jurisdiction, it would stand contrary to the well-established principle of International Law, which holds that the Court can only exercise jurisdiction over a state with its consent. Therefore, in the absence of Scandinatia’s consent to this Court’s jurisdiction, the claim of Ratanka and CUP to extradite Bobert Tires is rendered inadmissible. 2.2. ALTERNATIVELY, ANGHORE IS NOT OBLIGED TO SURRENDER OR EXTRADITE BOBERT TIRES TO CUP OR RATANKA Extradition is the formal surrender of a person by one State (the 'requested State') to the authorities of another (the 'requesting State') for the purpose of criminal prosecution

45

Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, Great Britain and Northern Island and United States of America), 1954 I.C.J 19 (June 15) 46

Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), 1992 I.C.J. 240, 326-330 (June 26) (Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel) (Dissenting Opinion of Judge Ago); Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), 1995 I.C.J. 90, 102 (June 30). 47

Id.

48

Compromis ¶27

49

Clarifications to the Compromis


6

BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 50 or the enforcement of a sentence. It is a form of legal assistance between States, granted on the basis of a bilateral or multilateral treaty, or by ad hoc agreement and does not exist as an obligation upon states in customary law.51 International Law does not establish a general duty to extradite.52 Such obligation exists only on the basis of bilateral or multilateral extradition agreements, or if the requested State is a party to an International Instrument which institutes a duty to extradite.53 Anghore and Ratanka are not simultaneous parties to any bilateral or multilateral extradition agreement.54 Thus, Anghore is not obliged to extradite Bobert Tires to Ratanka in the absence of any treaty between the two States. Second, Anghore is precluded from extraditing Bobert Tires to Ratanka on grounds of International human rights obligations. The prohibition on expulsion to any territory where the refugee could face a prohibited risk also applies to expulsion from Embassies.55 This suggests that far from breaching International Law by refusing to expel a person wanted by the territorial State, the Embassy authorities would in fact violate International Law if they were to expel the person notwithstanding the existence of a real risk of harm or violation of the person’s rights.56 In the case concerned, Bobert Tires faces a strong possibility of political persecution, such that it can also amount to the death penalty. Hence, concerning the gravity of the leaks, the political nature of the offense, the capital punishment in question and the conventional state practice of Ratanka in dealing with prisoners, the rights of Bobert Tires will be naturally jeopardized if extradited to Ratanka.

50

Sibylle Kapferer, The Interface between Extradition and Asylum, Legal And Protection Policy Research Series, UNHCHR (November 2003) 51

Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America) 1998 ICJ ¶34, Feb. 27 52

M. CHERIF BASSIOUNI, INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW, p.3, 4 (Third Edition, Volume 1, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1937); G. GILBERT, TRANSNATIONAL FUGITIVE OFFENDERS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, p. 47 (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1998) 53


Compromis ¶22

55

SIR E. LAUTERPACHT AND D. BETHLEHEM, THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-REFOULEMENT, p.663 (Cambridge University Press, June 2003) 56

IAN BROWNLIE, PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW, p. 34 (5 th edition, 2000)


7

BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Third, International Law precludes Anghore from surrendering and extraditing Bobert Tires to CUP. International Law prohibits the requested State (Anghore) from surrendering and extraditing if, as a consequence, the refugee or asylum-seeker would be exposed to a risk of Refoulement from the requesting State (CUP) through re-extradition or any other form of surrender to a third State.57 Also, the requesting State is not entitled to re-extradite a person to a third State without the consent of the State which granted that surrender in the first place. 58 Thus, if surrendered to CUP, the likeliness of Bobert Tires’ extradition from CUP to Ratanka and the evident possibility of human rights violations in Ratanka preclude Anghore from surrendering Bobert Tires to CUP. Hence, Anghore is not obliged to surrender Bobert Tires to CUP or extradite him to Ratanka. 2.3.ALTERNATIVELY,

BOBERT

TIRES

CANNOT

BE

EXTRADITED

OR

SURRENDERED TO CUP OR RATANKA OWING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NONREFOULEMENT AND NON-DISCRIMINATION 2.3.1. The principle of Non Refoulement precludes Anghore from extraditing or surrendering Bobert Tires to CUP or Ratanka. According to the principle of non-refoulement in the 1951 convention, a State shall not expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.59 Under this principle, the requested State is bound to refuse a request for the extradition of a person whom it has recognized as a refugee, if extradition is sought by the country of origin or any other country with respect to which a well-founded fear of persecution has been established.60 As a recognized principle of customary International Law, the prohibition of refoulement of refugees and asylum-seekers is also binding on States, which have not yet become parties to these instruments.61 It is 57

Council of Europe, European Convention on Extradition, Article 15, ETS 24 (1957); Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Convention, Article 21, (1993); UNGA, UN Model Treaty on Extradition, Article 14, U.N.Doc A/RES/45/116 58

Id.

59

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951, Article 33(1), 28 th July 1951, 189 UNTS 137

60

JAMES C HATHAWAY, THE RIGHTS OF REFUGEES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, p. 787 (Cambridge University Press, 2005) 61

UNHCR, Ministerial Meeting, The Declaration of States Parties to the 1951 Convention, 2001 Preamble ¶4,


8

BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 'progressively acquiring the character of a peremptory rule of International Law'.62 The fundamental and non-derogable character of the principle of non-refoulement has also been reaffirmed by the UNHCR as well as the UNGA.63 Further, no reservation is permitted to the principle of non-refoulement.64 Since Bobert Tires reasonably fears political persecution on account of him being threatened for being a part of a social group i.e. OWA and because of his political opinion, he cannot be extradited or surrendered according to the principle of nonrefoulement. 2.3.2. The principle of Non-Discrimination precludes Anghore from extraditing or surrendering Bobert Tires to CUP or Ratanka. According to the well-established principle of Non-Discrimination included in Extradition Law, extradition may be denied if a request for extradition is in fact made with persecutory and/or discriminatory intent, including in situations where the requesting State’s intention is to prosecute the person concerned on political grounds.65 This principle applies where requests for extradition are made with the intent of prosecuting or punishing the person concerned for political or other motives, or where extradition would prejudice their position for certain reasons, including, but not limited to, political opinion.66 Moreover, the personal scope of the discrimination principle is not confined to refugees or asylum-seekers. Provided there is a risk of persecution for political motives or prejudice for a relevant reason, the refusal ground under Extradition Law applies even if a person has been excluded from refugee protection under the 1951 Convention.67 Thus, even if the court is of the view that Bobert Tires is not a refugee under the Refugee Convention, extradition still (Dec 12 and 13) 62

UNHCR, UNHCR Note on the Principle of Non Refoulement (November, 1997)

63

UNHCR, CONCLUSIONS ADOPTED BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ON THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OF REFUGEES, p. 6,7 (United Nations, 1975-2009) 64

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951, Article 42(1), 28 th July 1951, 189 UNTS 137; Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1967, Article XII (1), 4 th Oct. 1967, U.N.T.S. Vol. 606 65

A. Helton, Harmonizing Political Asylum and International Extradition: Avoiding Cacophony, 13 Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 457 (1986) 66

Supra note 50

67

Sibylle Kapferer, The Interface between Extradition and Asylum, Legal And Protection Policy Research Series, UNHCHR (November 2003)


9

BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT cannot be granted because there exists an inherent fear of political persecution. 2.4. ALTERNATIVELY, BOBERT TIRES CANNOT BE EXTRADITED BECAUSE HE HAS COMMITTED A POLITICAL OFFENCE WHICH IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE OBLIGATION TO EXTRADITE Since the mid-19th century, bilateral agreements and national legislation have regularly incorporated the notion that extradition shall be refused if the requested State considers that the offence for which it is sought is of a political nature.68 Political offence includes acts such as treason, sedition, lèse-majesté, espionage69 and it gives rise to the refusal of extradition, as are direct assaults on the integrity or security of the State.70 It has now become a binding rule of customary international law.71 Such offences impose an obligation on the requested state to not extradite the offender to the requesting state because of fear of political persecution.72 Therefore, Anghore cannot extradite Bobert Tires since he is accused of espionage and treason,73 which falls under the definition of political offence. 2.5. ALTERNATIVELY, BOBERT TIRES CANNOT BE EXTRADITED OWING TO THE FEAR OF TORTURE, CRUEL OR INHUMAN TREATMENT The prohibition of handing a person over to a country where he or she would be exposed to a risk of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment forms a part of jus cogens74 and always prevails over a duty to extradite.75 Such prohibitions, as mentioned in 68

Id.

69

Manuel R. Garcia Mora, Treason, Seditions and Espionage as political offenses under the Law of Extradition, 65 PITT. L. REV. 26 (1964); Deere, Political Offenses in the Law and Practice of Extradition, 27 AM. J. INT'L L. 247 (1933). 70

W. KÄLIN, DAS PRINZIP DES NON-REFOULEMENT, EUROPÄISCHE HOCHSCHULSCHRIFTEN, p.65 (Vol. 298, Peter Lang Bern, 1982) 71

Garcia-Mora, The Nature of Political Offenses: A knotty Problem of Extradition Law, 48 V.A. L.REV. 1226 (1962) 72

Antje C. Petersen, Extradition and the Political Offence Exception, 67 Ind. L. J. 767 (1992)

73

Compromis ¶18

74

Prosecutor v. Antofurundzija, 1998 ICTY ¶143-157 (Dec.10)

75

Human Right Committee, States of Emergency, Article 4 ¶11, 2001, UN doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11


10

BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 76 numerous human rights instruments and UNGA Resolutions77 are non-derogable78 and are applied without exception, regardless of the conduct of the individual concerned or considerations of national security.79 States are bound by International Legal Standards not to expose a person to situations, which would result in the violation of certain fundamental rights, including, in particular, the right to be free from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.80 For the purpose of determining whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the person extradited will be exposed to torture, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.81 Ratanka has been involved in gross violations of human rights by subjecting prisoners of war to torture and inhuman treatment.82 Therefore, there are substantial grounds to believe that Bobert Tires, if extradited, could be subjected to torture. Hence, he cannot be extradited to Ratanka. 2.6. ALTERNATIVELY, BOBERT TIRES CANNOT BE EXTRADITED OWING TO FEAR OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT In an increasing number of States, refusal of extradition to capital punishment is mandatory. The refusal ground of capital punishment is also provided for in a number of International Extradition Instruments.83 Every human being has the inherent right to life and no one shall

76

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 3, Mar. 23, 1976, 999 U.N.T.S. 171(hereinafter ICCPR) 77

UNGA, Declaration on the Protection of all persons from being Subjected to Torture or other ruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, U.N.Doc A/RES/30/3452 (Dec. 9, 1975) 78

ICCPR, Article 4, Mar. 23, 1976, 999 U.N.T.S. 171

79

Supra note 4

80

SIR E. LAUTERPACHT AND D. BETHLEHEM, THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-REFOULEMENT, p.663 (Cambridge University Press, June 2003) 81

Convention Against torture, Cruel, Inhuman or other Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter UNCAT), Article 3(2), DEC. 10, 1984, U.N.T.S. Vol. 1565 82

Compromis ¶13

83

Council of Europe, European Convention on Extradition, Article 15, ETS 24 (1957); Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Convention, Article 21, (1993); UNGA, UN Model Treaty on Extradition, Article 14, U.N. Doc A/RES/45/116


11

BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 84 be arbitrarily deprived of his life. The right to life is non-derogable.85 It is also guaranteed under a number of regional human rights conventions.86 A decision to extradite which would expose the person concerned to a risk of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution would be contrary to the requested State’s obligations under International Human Rights Law.87 Since Bobert Tires fears political persecution, there exists a risk of capital punishment, 88 thus prohibiting Anghore from extraditing Bobert Tires. It can be concluded that Anghore is not obliged to extradite or surrender Bobert Tires. Thus, Anghore is not bound to honor the extradition request by Ratanka and CUP.

84

ICCPR, Article 6(1), Mar. 23, 1976, 999 U.N.T.S. 171

85

European Court of Human Rights, Article 2, Nov. 4 1950, ETS 5; American Convention on Human Rights, Article 4, Nov. 22, 1969; African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 4, June 27, 1981 86

Id.

87


Compromis ¶18


12

CONTENTION III RATANKA

HAS BREACHED INTERNATIONAL LAW BY THE MANNER AND NATURE OF INFORMATION GATHERED BY THE FIA

3.1. THE CLAIM PUT FORTH BY ANGHORE IS ADMISSIBLE ON GROUNDS OF OBLIGATION OWED TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY The ILC has clarified that all States are by definition, members of the International Community as a whole, and are entitled to invoke the responsibility of another state for breaches of collective obligations, which protect the interests of the International Community.89 An interested or a third State, which has not been directly injured by an Internationally Wrongful Act, would also have a legal interest in its compliance by reason of ‘importance of the rights involved.'90 The ICJ interpreted Article 48 of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts in the Barcelona Traction case to mean that all States can be held to have a legal interest in the protection of obligations to the international community as a whole.91 Obligations towards the International Community have been highlighted in various human rights documents such as the UDHR, ICCPR, and the ECHR.92 These conventions and declarations93 seek to protect the privacy of all individuals against unlawful or arbitrary interference. Additionally, Customary International Law upholds the territorial sovereignty and integrity of States against unlawful interference. 94 The FIA, inter alia, collected information regarding the defense and military acquisitions of various countries,95 recorded conversations of Heads of States96 and secretly obtained

89

Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Article 48(1), 3 rd August 2001, U.N.Doc A/56/83

90

Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Case (Belgium v. Spain), 1970 ICJ Reports ¶33–34 (Feb. 5)

91

Id.

92

Annie Bird, Third State Responsibility for Human Rights Violations, EJIL, Volume 21, p. 883 (2011)

93

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12, 10 December 1948; ICCPR, Article 17, Mar. 23, 1976, 999 U.N.T.S. 171; European Court of Human Rights, Article 8, Nov. 4 1950, ETS 5 94

Case Concerning the Military and Parliamentary Activities In and Around Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), 1986 I.C.J. 14 (June 27) 95

Compromis ¶3

96

Id.


13

BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 97 classified information of other States, in violation of the aforesaid Treaty obligations and Customary International Law. Thus, it invokes the legal interest of all States to protect the obligations, which are owed by Ratanka, to the International Community as a whole. Therefore, the claim put forth by Anghore is admissible before the ICJ. 3.2. THE INVESTIGATIVE MODES AND METHODS USED BY THE FIA OF RATANKA VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 3.2.1. The FIA’s modes and methods of investigation amount to International Peacetime Espionage. Espionage can be considered a consciously deceitful collection of information, ordered by a government, accomplished by humans authorized by the target to do the collection. 98 The FIA of Ratanka (which forms a part of Ratanka’s executive99) had been using state of the art technology and a network of agents in foreign jurisdictions to gather information including: recording of conversations between foreign heads of states, details of military and defence acquisitions and the development of space programs of various countries.100 Such activities amount to International Peacetime Espionage. The concept of International Peacetime Espionage or Spying encompasses a wide range of clandestine government activities.101 It includes wiretapping of cell phones and efforts to obtain greater knowledge about other States’ military capabilities.102 Peacetime espionage is regarded as an international delinquency and a violation of International Law.103 Ratanka sought to collect classified information of other States through agents and technology during peacetime, without the knowledge of the targeted States and thus, amounts to International Peacetime Espionage.

97

Compromis ¶9

98

Lt. Col. Geoffrey B. Demarest, Espionage in International Law, 24 Denv. J. Intl'l L. & Pol'y, 325 (1996)

99

Compromis ¶2

100

Compromis ¶3

101

Ashley Deeks, An International Legal Framework For Surveillance, Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series, University of Virginia School of Law (September 2014) 102

Adam Entous, Julian E. Barnes, U.S. scurries to shore up spying in Russia, Wall Street Journal, (March 24, 2014) 103

Manuel R. Garcia Mora, Treason, Seditions and Espionage as political offenses under the Law of Extradition, 65 26 U.PITT.L.REV.79-80 (1964)


14

BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 3.2.2. The FIA’s modes and methods infringe the Territorial Sovereignty and Integrity of foreign States. Two seminal principles of Customary International Law are a) Sovereignty and b) Territorial Integrity of other States.104 Territorial Sovereignty, a concomitant principle of International Law holds that every State has the duty to refrain from intervention in the internal or external affairs of any other State.105 A similar sentiment has been reiterated in the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.106 The principle of territorial integrity generally negates the permissibility of strategic observation in foreign territory. 107 Thus, the secretive technology and placing of agents in foreign jurisdictions to obtain information about the military and defense details of other States and recording of conversations of heads of States violate Territorial Sovereignty and Integrity of foreign States, thus contravening International Law. 3.2.3. The FIA’s modes and methods violate the basic right to privacy of individuals. The act of recording conversations of Heads of States by Ratanka’s FIA 108 stands against the basic right to privacy under International Law. The Right to Privacy in International Law entails a myriad of different things such as control over personal information, freedom from surveillance, personal autonomy and a series of other things.109 This right is a necessary requirement for life in a modern democratic society.110 Article 12 of the UDHR,111 Article 17 104

Case Concerning the Military and Parliamentary Activities In and Around Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), 1986 I.C.J. 14 (June 27) 105

ILC, Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, Yearbook of the ILC (Vol. I, 1949), U.N. Doc A/CN.4/SR.23 106

UNGA, Declaration on principles of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation among states in accordance with the UN charter, U.N.Doc A/RES/25/2625 (24th October, 1970) 107

JOHN KISH, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ESPIONAGE, (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 20 th December, 1995) 108

Compromis ¶3

109

P.B.Newell, Perspectives on Privacy, Journal of Environment Psychology, Volume 15, 2nd edition, p.87 (1995) 110

WESTIN, A.F., PRIVACY AND FREEDOM, p. 330 (THE BODLEY HEAD LTD., 1970)

111

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12, 217(III), 10 December 1948


15

BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 112 113 of the ICCPR and Article 8 of the ECHR seek to protect the privacy of individuals against unlawful or arbitrary interference. Importantly, the ICCPR and the ECHR establish an extraterritorial right to privacy, which implies the right of foreigners to privacy.114 It also clarifies that no one’s privacy must be interfered with unless reasoned by law. 115 The recording of conversations also stands contrary to the UNGA resolution addressing the right to privacy in the electronic age.116 In addition to being addressed in the most important International and Regional Human Rights Treaties, the Right to Privacy is incorporated into almost every constitution in the world, and into the general laws and jurisprudence of those countries without written constitutions.117 Considering international treaties, different legal systems and opinio juris, it can be rightly concluded that the Right to Privacy has become a part and parcel of Customary International Law.118 Thus, it is humbly submitted that the recording of conversations of foreign heads of States by Ratanka’s FIA violates the norms relating to privacy in International Law. Thus, it is pleaded that the modes and methods used by Ratanka’s FIA violate International Law.

112

ICCPR, Article 17, Mar. 23, 1976, 999 U.N.T.S. 171

113

European Court of Human Rights, Article 8, Nov. 4 1950, ETS 5

114

David Cole, We Are All Foreigners: NSA Spying and the Rights of Others, Just Security, (October 29, 2013); Martin Scheinin, Letter to the Editor from Former Member of the Human Rights Committee, Just Security, (March 10, 2014); Ryan Goodman, UN Human Rights Committee Says ICCPR Applies to Extraterritorial Surveillance: But Is That So Novel?, Just Security, (March 27, 2014) 115

Human Rights Committee, GA Report of the Human Rights Committee, 43rd session, U.N.Doc A/43/40 (1988) 116

UNGA, The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age, U.N.Doc A/Res/68/167 (June 30, 2014)

117

Edwards, G.E., International Human Rights Law Challenges to the New International Criminal Court: The Search and Seizure Right to Privacy, 26 Yale J. Int’l L. 23 (2001) 118

Alexandra Rengel, Privacy as an International Human Right and the Right to Obscurity in Cyber Space, 2(2) Groningen J. Int’l L. 33, (2014)


16

CONTENTION IV THE SANCTIONS IMPOSED BY RATANKA AND CUP AGAINST ANGHORE

VIOLATE

INTERNATIONAL LAW 4.1. THE SANCTIONS IMPOSED BY RATANKA AND CUP AGAINST ANGHORE AMOUNT TO ‘USE OF FORCE’ UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW International Sanctions are penalties threatened or imposed as a declared consequence of the target’s failure to observe international standards or international obligations.119 Article 2(4) of the UN Charter refrains all UN members in their international relations, from resorting to the threat or use of force against the Territorial Integrity or Political Independence of any State.120 The UNGA has adopted a series of resolutions that, inter alia, are designed to delegitimize the use of economic force by individual States.121 An armed attack by one State against another or the use of force in any other form contrary to the UN Charter, constituting a violation of International Law gives rise to International Responsibility.122 This highlights the prohibition of forms of force, other than military force, such as economic or political force.123 Other GA Resolutions equate economic sanctions to the traditional concept of ‘Use of Force’.124 If the word force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter were to not incorporate economic and political force, target States would be unable to take action against the Aggressor State that illegally instigated economic force.125 Such a compromise would undermine the inherent right to recourse in response to illegal action, thus, rendering Article 2(4)

inconsistent

with

Article

51

of

the

UN

Charter,

which

embodies

119

MARGARET P. DOXEY, INTERNATIONAL SANCTIONS IN CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVE, p. 9 (2nd Edition, Palgrave Macmillan 1996) 120

United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, Article 2(4), 1 UNTS XVI (24 th October 1945)

121

Paul Szasz, The Law of Economic Sanctions, 71 Int’l L. St. XVII (2008)

122

UNGA, The strict observance of the prohibition of the threat or use of force in international relations and of the right of people to self determination, U.N.Doc A/RES/2160/XXI (30th November, 1966) 123

UNGA, Declaration on the enhancement of effectiveness of the principles of refraining from the threat or use of force in international relations, U.N.Doc A/RES/42/22 (18th November, 1987) 124

UNGA, The Charter of economic rights and duties of States, U.N.Doc UNGA/RES/3281 XX1X (17th December, 1984); UNGA, Declaration on the enhancement of effectiveness of the principles of refraining from the threat or use of force in international relations, U.N.Doc A/RES/42/22 (18th November, 1987) 125

J Curtis Henderson, The legality of economic sanctions under International Law: The case of Nicaragua, 43Washington & Lee L. Rev. 181 (1986)


17

BODY OF ARGUMENTS


the basic principles of sovereignty and self-defense.126 Ratanka and CUP declared that they were imposing indefinite trade, economic, and financial sanction against Anghore and declared such embargo indefinitely.127 Such indefinite financial, economic and trade sanctions amount to ‘Use of Force’ under International Law. Such sanctions aim to coerce Anghore to terminate its grant of asylum, which amounts to force of an economic character undermining the political independence of Anghore under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Such economic ‘Use of Force’ also deprives Anghore of its inherent right to self-defense anchored in Article 51 of the UN Charter, which in turn undermines its sovereignty. Thus, the indefinite economic, financial and trade sanctions imposed on Anghore amount to ‘Use of Force’ under International Law. 4.2. ALTERNATIVELY, THE INDEFINITE SANCTIONS IMPOSED BY RATANKA AND CUP AGAINST ANGHORE AMOUNT TO ECONOMIC COERCION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW Economic Coercion is defined as the threat or acts by the sender government or governments to disrupt economic exchange with the target State, unless the target acquiesces to an articulated demand and is an increasingly prominent tool of Statecraft.128 The recent resolutions of the UNGA expressly deal with political and economic pressure and emphatically condemn this kind of coercion.129 Resolutions of the GA represent the expectations of the International Community and provide evidence of the norms of Customary International Law.130 An examination of various GA resolutions131 reflect the 126

L. GOODRICH, E. HAMBRO, CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS: COMMENTARY AND DOCUMENTS, (Third Edition, World Peace Foundation 1969) 127

Compromis ¶ 24

128

Daniel W. Drezner, The hidden hand of economic coercion, 57 Int’l Org. 1 (2003)

129

Hartmut Brosche, The Arab oil embargo and United States Pressure against Chile: Economic and Political Coercion and the Charter of the United Nations, 7 Case Western ReserveJ. Int’l L. 23 (1974) 130

O. ASAMOAH, THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DECLARATIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS, p. 46-62 (Martinus Nijhoff, 1967) 131

UNGA, Declaration on the inadmissibility of intervention in the domestic affairs of states and protection of their independence and sovereignty, U.N.Doc A/RES/20/2131 (21st December, 1965); UNGA, Declaration on principles of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation among states in accordance with the UN charter, U.N.Doc A/RES/25/2625 (24th October, 1970); UNGA, Economic measures as a means of political and economic coercion against developing countries, U.N.Doc A/RES/46/210 (20th December,1991); UNGA, Unilateral economic measures as a means of political and economic coercion against developing countries, U.N.Doc A/RES/66/138 (14th July, 2011)


18

BODY OF ARGUMENTS


strongly evolving stance of the International Community against Economic Coercion, particularly that which subordinates the sovereign rights of the Targeted State and seeks to secure an advantage from it, of any kind.132 Thus, the indefinite financial, economic, and trade sanctions were unilaterally imposed by the developed States of Ratanka and CUP against the developing State of Anghore, until it took measures deemed desirable by them, that is, the termination of Bobert Tires’ political asylum. Such coercive sanctions clearly undermine the sovereign right of Anghore to grant asylum and seek the advantage of ‘will appeasement’ from the developing State of Anghore, in contravention of the aforementioned UN Resolutions. Thus, these sanctions do not comply with Customary International Law. Additionally, Article 2(3) and Article 33 of the UN Charter exhort States to settle disputes by peaceful means.133 The sanctions imposed by the Ratanka and CUP violate its obligations towards a peaceful settlement with Anghore under the aforesaid articles of the UN Charter. Thus, considering that the sanctions were imposed directly without any prior intimation or efforts at negotiations, the indefinite sanctions imposed by Ratanka and CUP amount to economic coercion and non-peaceful settlement of disputes. 4.3 ALTERNATIVELY, THE INDEFINITE SANCTIONS IMPOSED BY RATANKA AND CUP AGAINST ANHORE ARE NOT COUNTERMEASURES Countermeasures are resorted to when the targeted State has committed an internationally wrongful act.134 However, indefinite sanctions have been imposed against Anghore (the targeted State) for its grant of political asylum, which it did in the exercise of its sovereign right. It adhered to its obligation of protecting an individual from political persecution or the fear of political persecution,135 which is evident in the case of Bobert Tires. Anchored in Chapter II of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts is the concept of Countermeasures.136 International law provides certain requirements to be complied with before resorting to a countermeasure. They are: a) to call upon the responsible

132

Paul Szasz, The Law of Economic Sanctions, 71 Int’l. L.St. 456 (2007)

133

Charter of the United Nations, Article 2(3) and Article 33, 1 U.N.T.S. XVI (24 th October 1945)

134

Chiara Franco, Coercive Diplomacy, SANCTIONS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW, (Instituto Affari Internazionali, March 5, 2015) 135

Supra note 23

136

Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Chapter II, 3 rd August 2001, U.N.Doc A/56/83


19

BODY OF ARGUMENTS


State to fulfill its obligations and b) to notify the responsible State of any decision to take countermeasures and offer to negotiate with the State.137 Accordingly, the only exception is that the injured State may take urgent counter measures as are necessary to preserve its rights.138 In contravention of these articles, Ratanka and CUP failed to notify or offer to negotiate with the Anghore. The indefinite financial, economic, and trade sanctions were imposed through a direct declaration;139 instead of any offer to negotiate, the dignity of Anghore’s embassy in CUP was directly undermined and targeted by stationing police officers outside the embassy such that it became a live siege of the embassy,140 in contravention of the VCDR.141 Additionally, there was absolutely no urgency in the given situation simply considering that Ratanka and CUP could have offered to negotiate and later notify their intent of imposing such sanctions on the probable failure of negotiations, instead of maintaining a live siege of the embassy in the meanwhile. Thus, the indefinite sanctions imposed by Ratanka and CUP are not countermeasures under International Law. Hence, the indefinite financial, economic, and trade sanctions imposed by the States of Ratanka and CUP against Anghore are in violation of International Law.

137

Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Article 50, 3 rd August 2001, U.N.Doc A/56/83

138

Id.

139

Compromis ¶ 24

140

Compromis ¶ 23

141

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Article 22(2), 18th April, 1961, 500 UNTS 95


20

PRAYER In light of the questions presented, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the agent for the Respondent State most humbly and respectfully pray before this Hon’ble Court, that it may be pleased to adjudge and declare that 1. The grant of diplomatic asylum to Bobert Tires by Anghore is in accordance with International Law. 2. There is an obligation under International Law on CUP to grant safe passage to Bobert Tires. 3. CUP violated International Law by stationing its officers outside the embassy. 4. Bobert Tires should be surrendered to CUP or extradited to Ratanka. 5. Ratanka has breached International Law by the manner and nature of information gathered by the FIA. 6. The sanctions imposed by Ratanka and CUP against Anghore are in violation of International Law. The Respondent State additionally prays that the Court may make any such order as it may deem fit in terms of equity, justice and due conscience. And for this act of kindness the Respondent State shall as duty bound ever humbly pray. (Respectfully Submitted)  - Agents on behalf of the Respondent State.


XX

Memorial for Respondent

Recommend Documents